RDB vs X95
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Joined
·
889 Posts
I assume you meant Tavor.
Joined
·
101 Posts
I've only seen NutnFancy's review of the X95. Based on that, I find absolutely no reason to pursue the X95, as it seems to offer few, if any, advantages over the Tavor due to import restrictions.
As far as the Tavor vs the RDB, the verdict remains unclear. The RDB has been stopped (to the point of needing complete takedown) by mud infiltration, whereas the Tavor will put gas in your face if you use a suppressor. The cost difference is already obvious; the RDB is a bargain if you can find it. Both rifles are ergonomically sound, with only minor issues related to their both being so short. The integrated sights on the Tavor are kinda nice, folding into the rail so that they don't get in the way, but if you plan on mounting a magnified optic then this is academic. The RDB is a little lighter. The trigger is probably the biggest thing. The Tavor has a modular trigger that sucks, but can be replaced, whereas all reports on the RDB say that the trigger is the best of any of the bullpups ever made.
The RDB is cleverly designed, versatile, light, and apparently as tough as most things, as long as you don't toss it into a mud pit.
As far as the Tavor vs the RDB, the verdict remains unclear. The RDB has been stopped (to the point of needing complete takedown) by mud infiltration, whereas the Tavor will put gas in your face if you use a suppressor. The cost difference is already obvious; the RDB is a bargain if you can find it. Both rifles are ergonomically sound, with only minor issues related to their both being so short. The integrated sights on the Tavor are kinda nice, folding into the rail so that they don't get in the way, but if you plan on mounting a magnified optic then this is academic. The RDB is a little lighter. The trigger is probably the biggest thing. The Tavor has a modular trigger that sucks, but can be replaced, whereas all reports on the RDB say that the trigger is the best of any of the bullpups ever made.
The RDB is cleverly designed, versatile, light, and apparently as tough as most things, as long as you don't toss it into a mud pit.
Agreed, the only real change seems to be the charging handle, a little extra rail by default, and changing the mag release. Though again from all the reading the rifle has an MOA that expands rapidly as the gun gets hot from repeated firing. Did some reading on it before settling on the RDB.
Far as the "mud test" goes I believe their words were "about as good as an m-14" and the ak had similar performance in another test. far as i'm concerned that's good enough for me, don't think i'm going to take it swiming in the swamps
Joined
·
138 Posts
They also did not submerge any of the previous rifles completely in mud like they did the RDB. They always just placed them across the wheelbarrow and poured mud over both sides with a shovel (granted, if an RDB falls into mud in the real world, it's obviously likely some would get into the ejection port).
Regardless, it might be an easy fix, if it was ever felt to be truly necessary, with an ejection port dust cover (like the trapdoor on the P90?) and a charging handle assembly that completely encircles the gas piston. The mag release also seems like a potential point of entry, but without seeing a mud test that specifically targets that area, it's hard to know what issues might arise.
In the end though, I live in the Pacific Northwest and I can't really recall seeing a mud puddle even during the rainy season bad enough to emulate their test, let alone fall in one like an idiot. So I'm not sweating it.
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
